US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
Because Iamrefreshed seems to have a need to know that I am not envious of them.
Click to expand...
Actually, I wanted you to give me your newer car since you are ‘richer’ than me and mine is 15 years old.

You know, shared sacrifice.😉
 
CMatt25 said:
Sure but I’m not representing the Catholic Church and the conservative politics trumpeted by the majority here is partly why you don’t see Catholic in my profile. Yet like Prodigal Son I don’t believe Christ would turn down a government role to add additional support for the poor and the sick.
Click to expand...
Neither do many Conservatives. Government definately has it’s role.
 
The one liners have an appearance of ‘one up man ship’ instead of an honest discussion. Are they really necessary? How do people feel they add validity, one way or another, to a discussion? Or, is it a simple tactic in an attempt to quiet those you disagree with? :rolleyes:
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
I know many people who are quite the opposite; they may be disabled in some mental aspects, but are more than able to hold down a job as a cashier or stocking shelves to help offset their respective burdens on society. However, they view these jobs as “beneth them” and would rather claim 100% of what they are offered from the government, and then get scared when there’s a threat of budget cuts.

I know other people who teach in urban school districts. Many of the parents don’t care about their children and they don’t take an active interest in their childrens live, academics, discipline. No matter how much money the districts throw at them, or what new techniques they try or extra staff they bring on, it does no good. The school is treated like a giant day care, all at tax payer expense. The schools are rife with reverse racism. Quite simply, these people do not value education as they do not need to; Uncle Sam pays them to do nothing.

We can argue anecdotal evidence all day. Can you provide any hard evidence to refute us?
Click to expand...
You mean you can dismiss my anecdotal evidence but I must refute your generalizations? For example: you claim that reverse racism is rife in schools - does that imply that racism is not? My young son would disagree with you vehemently, but then, his experience is only anecdotal…You keep your anecdotes and let me keep mine - how’s that for fairness?
 
CMatt25 said:
When I don’t see it, I don’t assume just because it’s a Catholic forum given that others are allowed to participate in discusions.
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about what you see/assume. We are talking about “lurkers.” 🙂

Perhaps you should help them out by putting “liberal” or “Democrat” in there. 😃
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The one liners have an appearance of ‘one up man ship’ instead of an honest discussion. Are they really necessary? How do people feel they add validity, one way or another, to a discussion? Or, is it a simple tactic in an attempt to quiet those you disagree with? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think this thread jumped the shark about 50 posts ago.
 
estesbob said:
The top 25% of earners in the United States pay 84% of all federal income taxes. Which leads to the question just how much is enough?
Click to expand...
And yet the top 2 or 3% who can afford to pay even more in time of budget crisis, should be asked to. Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Yet I won’t hold my breath that many of them are just going to voluntarily write to an IRS address. :rolleyes:
 
CMatt25 said:
And yet the top 2 or 3% who can afford to pay even more in time of budget crisis, should be asked to. Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Yet I won’t hold my breath that many of them are just going to voluntarily write to an IRS address. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And what good would that do?

The crisis isn’t an income problem, its a spending problem. As for the poor, why should they not share?
 
seekerz said:
They were not forced to live in community (or even to give to the poor) but they were required to pay taxes. Same situation today.
Click to expand...
What’s your point? Are you trying to say that early Christian communities are the small scale model that should be applied to the large scale, modern day, Roman Empire?

What I am saying is that this model does not scale up because it defies the necessary right-sizing mix of subsidiarity & solidarity.

Obviously, Our Lord was not against welfare. The parable about unemployment compensation is an example, where laborers who showed up seeking work received a full days pay whether or not they worked a full day. If you are willing to work, and you need to eat, then you are entitled to eat by a beneficial employer - whether private or public sector.

Obviously, Our Lord was against those who are lazy and don’t measure up. Those who forgot oil for their lamp were not offered oil by those who came prepared. If those who came prepared shared evenly with the lazy, then when they entered the wedding feast, halfway through all the lights would go out. Our Lord did not chastise these ‘uncharitable, selfish’ individuals, but rather told the lazy share-with-me jokers to get lost.

This latter predicament is the one our nation is in today.
 
Minor point but I just want to say I see a lot of people saying a cell phone is a luxury and I don’t think it is. First of all b/c if you are able to drive or take public transportation a cell phone can get help for you if you get stuck/have an accident, or something else goes wrong. Second for women especially there is always the risk of rape no matter how small if you use common sense. That risk is less if you start to get a funny feeling and you have a cell phone to call the police. There are other situations like risk of fire.

A lot of these are unlikely except for car breakdowns/accidents but they happen. For example if I were out walking in broad daylight and a group of guys started looking at me funny I would want a cell phone so I could call the police if they started swearing at me and etc. rather than not have one and be vulnerable to whatever they decided to do, which is probably just verbal harassment but you never know. If I was driving in the snow and had a minor accident or my car broke down I’d want a cell phone so I could call for help without leaving the car, esp. if I had children or was lost. Similar thing with issues that may come up on public transportation.
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes but Prodigal Son and I and apparently the USCCB and others believe Christ would support a larger role than you do.
Click to expand...
And, according to the Church, we are able to differ in those opinions.
 
rlg94086 said:
And, according to the Church, we are able to differ in those opinions.
Click to expand...
We have the usual problem here. When we quote direct teachings of the church concerning a Catholic not being able to vote for pro-abortion candidate we are inundated with rationalizations as to why the Church really doesn’t mean what they say and it can be safely ignored. The same people, when we get a rather vague pronouncement from from a bureaucrat at the USCCB about the proper level of funding for social programs , tell us that that is proof positive that Catholics are required ti embrace the entire “progressive” social agenda without question.

. The root of the problem can be traced back to the 60s when so-called progressive Catholics tried to hijack the Church’s support of social justice into a call to promote the left-wing extremist social agenda.
 
estesbob said:
We have the usual problem here. When we quote direct teachings of the church concerning a Catholic not being able to vote for pro-abortion candidate we are inundated with rationalizations as to why the Church really doesn’t mean what they say and it can be safely ignored. The same people, when we get a rather vague pronouncement from from a bureaucrat at the USCCB about the proper level of funding for social programs , tell us that that is proof positive that Catholics are required ti embrace the entire “progressive” social agenda without question.

. The root of the problem can be traced back to the 60s when so-called progressive Catholics tried to hijack the Church’s support of social justice into a call to promote the left-wing extremist social agenda.
Click to expand...
👍

To summarize, issue is you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
 
So did the bishops run the figures on their plan to see if it would increase or decrease the debt? Did they have it vetted by a neutral 3rd party such as Moody’s? (We’ll forget Standard & Poors for the moment.) Do they think that reducing the debt would be a benefit or a detriment to the poor? Do they think that passing off debt to future generations yet unborn is moral?

Now, Jesus could heal the sick and feed the hungry by the thousands.

And yet he did not establish his own healthcare and welfare plans. Didn’t even spend the most of his ministry on doing those things.
 
JimG said:
So did the bishops run the figures on their plan to see if it would increase or decrease the debt? Did they have it vetted by a neutral 3rd party such as Moody’s? (We’ll forget Standard & Poors for the moment.) Do they think that reducing the debt would be a benefit or a detriment to the poor? Do they think that passing off debt to future generations yet unborn is moral?

Now, Jesus could heal the sick and feed the hungry by the thousands.

And yet he did not establish his own healthcare and welfare plans. Didn’t even spend the most of his ministry on doing those things.
Click to expand...
He did establish a healthcare and welfare plan. Feed the hungry, cloth the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top